Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Methodology for improving reliability of river discharge measurements T

E.S. Bekri , P.C. Yannopoulos, P. Economou
∗

Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Patras, 265 04, Patras, Greece

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Programs to monitor water characteristics are undertaken to identify any possible water pollution of a river. To
River flowrate measurement compute reliable water pollution loads, accurate river discharge and pollutant/tracer concentrations are re-
Water pollution load quired. When pollutants/tracers are measured with sufficient precision, the accuracy of river discharge mea-
Measurement error-correction surements becomes the most critical parameter of the pollutant load computation, as well as the largest error
Nonlinear optimization
source. The absence of permanent measuring equipment in many rivers is a common difficulty for the im-
Water volume conservation
plementation of monitoring programs. Alternatively, quick measurement methods which are low in cost and
Tracer mass conservation
reliability (e.g. floats) are often employed to get an estimate of river discharges, when there are budgetary and
time restrictions. In this paper, an original technique, mainly for use in ungauged rivers, is proposed for cor-
recting river discharge measurements which have low levels of accuracy; this in turn would correct pollutant
concentrations. A nonlinear optimization problem is developed based on water volume and pollutant mass
conservation principles for river balance nodes, taking into consideration non-measurable latent quantities.
Parallel measurements of discharge and tracers for representative cross-sections of a river and its tributaries are
required. The measurement conditions should refer to the steady-state hydraulic conditions usually prevailing in
the flow under consideration. In order to test the reliability of the method, a virtual river example is built,
defining the real values of water characteristics and generating measurement sets via Monte-Carlo simulations
combining random and systematic errors. For more than 92% of the generated measurement sets, the proposed
technique results in a successful and acceptable correction for the total of the measured cross-sections. Finally,
the method is applied to a real river and the measurements are corrected successfully.

1. Introduction
One of the key stages of river basin management is the monitoring
of water quantity and quality in order to: establish a coherent and
comprehensive overview of water status; identify changes or trends in
water quality and quantity; and to assess remediation or preventive
measures within each river basin district. According to the European
Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC (WFD, 2000), river mon-
itoring programs should determine the mass load as well as the level of
predefined pollutants. The mass load of a pollutant/natural tracer at a
selected river cross-section is indirectly estimated by the combination
of parallel measurements of water discharge and pollutant concentra-
tion; since its calculation results from the multiplication of these two
measurements. It is worth noting that numerous measurements and
samples are needed to accurately and reliably capture the true value of
a measured parameter. There is often a conflict between the number of
observations a measurement program can afford and the number
needed to obtain an accurate and reliable parameter estimate. For this
reason, it is useful on the one side to investigate the propagation of
error in measurements and, on the other side, to develop and integrate
techniques and procedures to correct the measured values, or even try
to derive more reliable values.
A plethora of river discharge measurement methods has been de-
veloped and described (WMO, 1980; ISO, 1981, 1988; Rantz, 1982;
Kinori and Mevorach, 1984; White, 1988; Müller, 1988; Fujita, 2017).
The choice of each method is determined by the features of the river
and the available measuring apparatus. For a holistic and complete
picture of the whole river status, including its tributaries, quantitative
and qualitative characteristics should be measured in tandem at sui-
tably-chosen cross-sections, which embody the whole river. To achieve
this, fixed discharge measurement arrangements should be present, as
well as continuously-functioning automatic samplers for the measure-
ment of pollutant concentrations. River discharge is ideally estimated
from water-level recording equipment at a properly-built cross-section
by means of a discharge rating curve determined from a number of
discrete measurements taken by current meters and floats. Un-
fortunately, this systematized measuring scheme is not available in all
river bodies world-wide. In this case, mobile measuring equipment is

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ebekri@upatras.gr (E.S. Bekri).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.064
Received 7 January 2019; Received in revised form 24 April 2019; Accepted 17 May 2019
0301-4797/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
E.S. Bekri, et al.
employed. The most common and reliable method is to determine the
geometric properties of the cross-section in conjunction with the flow
velocity, employing a current-meter at specific depths. However, other
accurate river-discharge measuring or estimating techniques have been
proposed; these include the Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
(Simpson, 2001; Gartner and Ganju, 2007), although this has proven
problematic during high river flows because of high-suspended sedi-
ment concentration occurrences (Yorke and Oberg, 2002). In addition,
combinations of measuring and computational techniques have been
developed (Koelling, 2004; Nakagawa et al., 2007; Kuriqi and
Ardiçlioglu, 2018). It is of note that some of these methods interfere
with the natural water quality or are prohibitively expensive and
complex to install and operate (Kuusisto, 1996).
For the determination of river water quality characteristics, in-situ
field measurements of physical and chemical parameters (such as
temperature, conductivity or salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, turbidity,
fluorescence, BOD5, nutrients and metals) take place in parallel with
water sampling for laboratory analysis (Kuusisto, 1996). Standards for
water quality monitoring could be “any relevant CEN/ISO standards or
such other national or international standards, which will ensure the
provision of data of an equivalent scientific quality and comparability”
(WFD, 2000). It is worth mentioning that the use of tracers as water
quality signatures has been recognized as the most productive method
in hydrology for determining water budgets and stream-flow generation
processes (Peters, 1994). According to Peters (1994), environmental
tracers (such as naturally-occurring isotopes [18O, D], solutes [Cl−,
Br−, SO42−]) and other physical and chemical characteristics (tem-
perature, specific conductance and alkalinity) used to track the move-
ment of water have gained widespread acceptance. Moreover, tracers
can assist in identifying the spatial and temporal movement of water
flowing into a catchment. During the tracer monitoring period, it is
essential to ensure that no unusual climatic conditions are taking place.
Additionally, the water sampling position should be carefully selected,
verifying good vertical mixing conditions (Elhadi et al., 1984). Kirchner
et al. (2000) analyzed a detailed time series of chloride in both rainfall
and runoff from a headwater catchment, demonstrating that con-
taminants will initially be flushed rapidly but then low-level con-
tamination will be delivered to streams for a surprisingly long time,
revealing that the tracer concentrations will retain a long chemical
memory of past inputs.
In many cases, the time available for completing river-flow rate and
water-quality measurements at various cross-sections (covering the
entire river and its tributaries), ensuring steady state flow conditions, is
significantly shorter than the time needed for in-situ measurements and
sampling during the daytime. In such cases, where budgetary con-
siderations restrict the implementation of monitoring programs, quick
methods which are low in cost and reliability (such as floats, release of
air bubbles and the pendulum) (Yannopoulos, 1995; Yannopoulos et al.,
2000, 2008) are often employed for river discharge measurements.
These measurements should then be subject to error correction to in-
crease their reliability.
Various methods have been developed for estimating the un-
certainty in discharge measurements, including hydrographer estimates
(Rantz, 1982) and statistical error propagation techniques (Carter and
Anderson, 1963; Herschy, 1971, 1985; ISO, 1979; WMO, 1980; Sauer
and Meyer, 1992). Error correction techniques are generally very cost-
effective and, therefore, efficient for data assimilation. A thorough re-
view of processes for estimating discharge-measurement errors was
published by Dickinson (1967), updated by Pelletier (1988) and lately
by McMillan et al. (2012). The uncertainty of individual river-discharge
measurements includes random and systematic errors in the cross-sec-
tional area, as analytically described in Sauer and Meyer (1992) and Le
Coz (2012).
The data validation and reconciliation (DVR) methodology (Kuehn
and Davidson, 1961; Mah et al., 1976; Himmelblau, 1978; Maquin
et al., 1991) is an interesting scientific effort aimed at correcting
372
Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384
measurement errors due to measurement noise. It is applied mainly in
industry sectors where the measurements are inaccurate or even non-
existent, for example: in the upstream sector where flow meters are
difficult or expensive to position (Delava et al., 1999); or where accu-
rate data is of high importance, for example for security reasons in
nuclear power plants (Langenstein et al., 2004). The DVR improves the
accuracy of the process data by adjusting the measured values so that
they satisfy the process constraints. In general, data reconciliation can
be formulated by a weighted least squares (WLS) optimization problem
or maximum likelihood objective function; where the measurement
errors are minimized with process model constraints. These data re-
conciliation techniques not only reconcile the raw measurements, but
also estimate unmeasured process variables or model parameters, if
they are observable. Usually, the kind of constraints included are mass
and energy-balance constraints, such as deterministic valid physical
laws and, in some cases, other inequality relations imposed by the
feasibility of the process operations. Empirical or other types of equa-
tions, involving many unmeasured parameters, are not recommended
to be used as constraints, since at best they are only known approxi-
mately. The reconciled estimates are expected to be more accurate than
the measurements themselves and, more importantly, to be also con-
sistent with the known relationships between the process variables as
defined by the constraints.
The most commonly-used criterion/objective function to select the
optimal solution in data reconciliation is the WLS deviations of the
corrected discharges from their measured values. However, as analyzed
in Özyurt and Pike (2004), different objective functions besides the
WLS can be used for data reconciliation. Classical approaches to data
validation are usually solved by statistical methods, when an explicit
characterization of the measurement error is available. The main dif-
ficulty with this statistical method is that the processes are not always
perfectly described and understood, and, thus, the measurement pre-
cision cannot be precisely quantified. In many cases, the user has only
an experimental knowledge, or a rough guess based on previous theo-
retical and experimental knowledge of the value range of a parameter
(upper and lower limit). The concept of expressing the measurement
error as an interval is employed in the so-called parameter set estima-
tion from bounded error data (Fogel and Huang, 1982; Milanese and
Belforte, 1982; Himmelblau, 1985; Milanese et al., 1996; Ragot and
Maquin, 2005). In this estimation, it is assumed that all types of errors
belong to a known set and that the measurement error is bounded. It
includes the determination of a set of constant parameter values (called
the feasible parameter set) which is compatible with all the available
observations, taking into account the error bounds and the model
constraints (Maquin et al., 1991).
Based on nonlinear optimization, this study proposes an error-cor-
rection methodology for computing river discharge and pollutant/
tracer concentration values (and subsequently pollution loads) of
higher accuracy and reliability compared with the initial measurements
(Yannopoulos and Bekri, 2010; Bekri et al., 2012, 2013). In order to
achieve this, water volume conservation is combined with pollutant/
tracer mass balance within river balance nodes. This method also en-
ables the determination of a non-measurable unknown latent discharge
at each river node. It resembles to data reconciliation techniques, since
it also aims to correct the raw measurements by formulating an opti-
mization problem based on the mass conservation principle. However,
to the best of our knowledge, the combination of water volume and
tracer mass conservation in a river network by measuring cross-sections
and balance nodes (as analyzed here) has not been developed and ap-
plied up to now to correct the measurements of flowrate and pollutant
concentration with the aim of computing more reliable pollution loads.
We test the technique on a virtual river for which the true values of
flowrate and pollutant/tracer concentration are defined. Various mea-
surement sets are produced with Monte-Carlo simulations incorporating
the effects of random and systematic errors. Next, we apply the method
to a real case, the Alfeios river (Greece), where quantitative and
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

qualitative measurement data are available at various cross-sections

covering the entire river length and its tributaries. The suggested
methodology can be applied not only to rivers without permanent
measurement stations, as presented in this paper, but also to rivers
composed of proper measurement positions/cross-sections, resulting in
balance nodes. The technique can also be employed in cases where the
measurements are taken with more accurate measuring methods than
the ones described in this paper, in order to further increase the accu-
racy and to estimate any possible non-measurable latent quantities.
Within this framework, the proposed methodology attempts to reduce
time, complexity, personnel and the cost of river monitoring programs,
as well as of water resource management plans.

2. Material and methods

2.1. Problem setup

Let us consider an ungauged river of interest which is composed of a

main river and some tributaries. Within a limited budget, we need to
apply a monitoring program for the water status of this river with the
aim of specifying changes in water quality and possible water pollution
as well as assessing remediation measures. A sufficient number of
measurement positions/cross-sections should be selected, covering the
entire river length and its most important tributaries, where parallel
measurements of water quantity and quality will take place. The loca-
tion of each measurement position must be correctly selected to ensure
that the cross-sections are situated close enough to minimize any in-
termediate water inflow. On the other hand, the cross-sections should
be located far enough away from each other to allow for complete cross-
sectional mixing conditions. It is then possible to define balance nodes
for which the water volume and mass conservation of various stable
and conservative pollutant/natural tracers can be estimated. Each
single node is composed of one inflowing and one outflowing cross-
section situated on the main river; and the intermediate cross-sections,
if any, correspond to its tributaries. A common cross-section is defined
between successive nodes, which for the downstream node is inflow
and for the upstream node is outflow.
In each single-balance node, we account for the existence of an
unknown and not directly-measured water quantity (referred to as
“latent”) in the process. The latent discharge of a balance node is as-
sumed to correspond to the runoff of a catchment area, which is in-
cluded between all inflowing cross-sections and the outflowing cross-
section of the node. Τhe runoff from this area is missing from the water
balance of the node. The flow rate, which is measured at each inflowing
cross-section of a node, is the sum of the drainage area of the corre-
sponding sub-catchment up to the given cross-section. On the other
hand, the flow rate measured at the outflowing cross-section is the sum
of the entire area of the whole catchment up to the given cross-section,
which is not considered from the inflowing cross-sections. However, the
exact area for the latent quantity cannot be computed with certainty
and only rough approximations may be made. In addition to con-
sidering the unaccounted areas, the latent discharge is assumed to in-
clude any other unknown or hidden contribution from the surface water
bodies and/or their interplay with the groundwater, which is expected
to be quite small based on the assumptions for the application of the
proposed methodology. Thus, according to our latent term definition,
the latent discharge may flow into or out of the corresponding node. It
should be noted that the necessity of considering a latent term is also
verified from the theory of data reconciliation (e.g. Ragot et al., 1991;
Baloochy et al., 2010; Hancock, 2013). More precisely, in cases where
significant losses are present, the inclusion of an unknown loss term in
the balance equation, which can be estimated as part of the re-
conciliation equations, has been suggested. In river systems, even when
the cross-sections have been properly selected as previously discussed,
there are unknown and unobserved water quantities which contribute
Fig. 1. (a) Schematization of an example river into 6 measurement cross-sec-
tions and 2 balance nodes (see Section 2.3 for more details); (b) General no-
tation of the proposed technique for two intermediate balance nodes i = k and
i = k+1 of a general example river and the corresponding cross-sections (i,s).
to the node's water volume balance and which may be taken into
consideration by defining a latent term.
The days of the measuring expeditions should be carefully selected,
ensuring that the measurement conditions refer to the mean hydraulic
conditions usually prevailing in the flow under consideration (Schmidt
et al., 2012), i.e. being in a steady state (no transient effects). In order to
minimize the duration of each measurement expedition (one to two
days), quick river-discharge measurement methods (which are low in
cost and reliability) together with in-situ field measurements of pollu-
tants/natural tracers can be undertaken; thus, the overall cost of each
expedition will remain low. In order to estimate reliable pollution
loads, accurate river discharge and pollutant/tracer concentrations are
required. For our study, we select pollutant/tracer concentrations
which have sufficient levels of measurement accuracy. When pollutant
or natural tracers are measured precisely, the accuracy of discharge
measurements becomes the most critical component of the pollutant
load computation, and the largest source of error (NCSU, 2008). Thus,
within our research framework, discharge measurements with low re-
liability levels should be corrected to increase their accuracy.
To facilitate comprehension of the proposed methodology, a sim-
plified example river (Fig. 1(a)) will be presented in parallel with the
general description. This example river is composed of the main river
and three tributaries. Six measurement cross-sections are specified,
defining two balance nodes. These two successive nodes are then con-
nected with a common cross-section (cross-section 3). The methodolo-
gy's overview is given in the flowchart of Fig. 2 and a glossary including
abbreviations and symbols is given in Appendix B.

373
E.S. Bekri, et al.
Fig. 2. Flowchart of the steps of the proposed error correction methodology.
2.2. Conceptual framework
Based on the schematization of a river into properly-selected mea-
surement cross-sections and balance nodes as described in Section 2.1,
we propose an original methodology for correcting mainly river-dis-
charge measurements (these being the most critical parameter for the
estimation of pollution loads). Pollutant/tracer concentrations can also
be corrected with the suggested correction technique, though the pre-
cision of their measurement values must already be sufficiently high, in
order to meet the requirements of the method.
The method includes formulating a nonlinear optimization problem
based on the measurements and corresponding measurement errors of
the two parameters: a) river discharge and b) pollutant/tracer con-
centration at the defined cross-sections. The objective function is the
WLS deviations of the corrected discharges from their measured values.
The constraints include: (i) the dual inequalities (in the form of upper
and lower value bounds) of the two parameters to be optimized/
374
Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384
corrected for all cross-sections; and (ii) the dual inequalities (in the
form of upper and lower value bounds) to be derived by properly re-
formulating the equations of water volume and pollutant mass con-
servation at each single-balance node, as well as at all possible balance-
node combinations (i.e. every two successive nodes, every three suc-
cessive nodes, up to the balance of the entire river).
The measurement errors for the river discharge are approximated
based on the author's experimental knowledge. From the total of the
measured pollutants/natural tracers, we select those which have been
estimated sufficiently accurately; therefore, resulting in a sufficiently
low measurement error. The measurement error of the pollutant/tracer
concentration is computed based on the measuring equipment error
parameters provided by the manufacturers.
The electrical conductivity of water (hereafter called “conductivity”
and symbolized with “EC”) is one of the most commonly-measured
physico-chemical parameters and, as such, is included in the applica-
tion of the proposed methodology. The increasing use of conductivity as
a natural tracer is related to the growing availability of commercial
sensors enabling highly reliable and simple measurements (Schmidt
et al., 2012). Conductivity is considered a good estimate of the total
inorganic dissolved solids present in the water column (Eaton et al.,
1995; Allan et al., 2007). The total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration
is calculated as the summation of anions and cations dissolved in water
(inorganic salts – mainly magnesium, calcium, sodium, potassium,
chlorides, sulphates and bicarbonates), and is considered to be an in-
direct measure of the water quality with respect to the amount of dis-
solved ions; since it does not provide analytical information regarding
the nature and the exact relationship of the present ions, nor the water
characteristic parameters. Thus, the TDS concentration plays the role of
a general water-quality indicator. The conductivity value is directly
proportional to the TDS concentration. It is therefore possible to use
conductivity measurements in the pollutant conservation equation in-
stead of the TDS concentration. The approximate conversion of water
conductivity (usually expressed in mS/cm) into TDS concentration
(expressed in ppm) is undertaken through a factor ranging from 0.5 to
0.9, depending on the chemical composition of the TDS (APHA, 1999).
Moreover, chloride and sulphate ions are also included in this process.
Kim et al. (2002) investigated the chemical behavior of major inorganic
ions in the streams of the Mankyung river area (South Korea). The
authors revealed that (i) chloride and sulphate concentrations, (ii) the
total concentration of major cations, and (iii) conductivity in the stream
were controlled by mixing, indicating a conservative behavior like
chloride. The same study demonstrated that the alkalinity and con-
centration of nitrates are regulated by various reactions such as mixing,
photosynthesis, respiration and decomposition of organic matter (ibid);
for this reason, we do not include them in our methodology.
In each single-balance node, we account for the existence of an
unknown and not directly-measured latent water quantity in the pro-
cess, as described in Section 2.1. Concerning the unknown measure-
ment/estimation error of the latent discharge terms, we consider a
larger relaxed value. The reason for this is to avoid the unmeasured
latent terms taking values close to their initial estimates (since these are
not measured) and the water volume and tracer mass conservation
balances from which they result being subject to errors. In this way,
these hypothetical latent terms cannot play a divergent role in the
optimization of the values of the measured cross-sections, since they do
not restrict the balances into narrow value limits. This argument for the
unmeasured variables is also proposed by Mandel et al. (1998) and
Ragot and Maquin (2005).
2.3. Notation and symbols
To present the mathematical form of the proposed methodology, we
employ the general notation detailed below for the cross-sections and
the nodes, and for two successive nodes, as shown in Fig. 1(a). This
notation is accordingly extended for more balance nodes for every river
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

of interest, as shown in Fig. 1(b) for two successive balance nodes. The 2.4. Mathematical framework: nonlinear optimization
balance nodes are symbolized with i and their enumeration starts from
the river springs (i = 1) towards river estuaries (i = K), following the The chosen objective function, F, includes the WLS deviations of the
flow direction. The enumeration of the cross-sections also follows the corrected river discharges from their measured values for all cross-
flow direction. They are denoted by using two indices (i,s): the first one, sections, including the latent ones. The corrected values of the para-
i, is connected to the node enumeration (where: i = 1,2, …,K+1) and meters are derived from the minimization of the objective function F:
the second one, s, to the enumeration of the cross-sections within node i K ni 2 2 K 2
(where: s = 0,1,2, …,ni and ni is the total number of tributaries at node Xi, s x i, s XK + 1,0 xK + 1,0 Xi, x i,
F= + +
i). i=1 s=0 i, s K + 1,0 i=1 i,

More precisely, for all cross-sections situated along the main river (1)
(not corresponding to tributaries) the index s is set equal to 0 and the
The constraints of the optimization problem include two groups of
index i takes the value of the node into which the cross-sections flow.
equations. Firstly, dual inequalities express the upper and lower ac-
This results in the following indices: (1,0) denotes the inflowing cross-
ceptable value bound of the parameters to be optimized, based on their
section of node i = 1; (2,0) denotes the inflowing cross-section of node
measured values and the corresponding measurement error, as shown
i = 2,3,4 etc.; and (K,0) denotes the inflowing cross-section of the last
below:
node i = K. Following this notation, for the last defined node K the
outflowing cross-section is denoted (K+1,0). The node i = K+1 is a 0 xi, s (1 i, s ) Xi,s xi, s (1 + i, s ) for 1 i K + 1; 0 s ni; s = ;
hypothetical node situated downstream from the last defined node K 0 yi, s, j (1 i, s , j ) Yi, s, j yi,s, j (1 + i, s, j) for 1 i K + 1; 0 s ni; s = ; 1 j p

and is considered only in order to conform to the notation system. For (2)
illustrative reasons, this general notation is applied to the example river
The second group of constraints is based on the equations of water
shown in Fig. 1(a). In this case, the three cross-sections situated along
volume and pollutant/tracer mass conservation written for each single-
the main river are denoted as (1,0), (2,0) and (3,0).
balance node, as well as for every possible combination of the succes-
The measurement cross-sections (i,s) situated on the tributaries are
sive balance nodes (every two balance nodes, every three balance
defined by employing as i the number of the node to which they belong
nodes, up to taking the balance of the entire river). The group includes
(where: i = 1,2, … K), and as s the number from 1 up to the number of
(a) equality and (b) dual inequality constraints as analyzed below. The
tributaries of node ni following the flow direction. For the example river
equality constraints are the balance equations. The water volume and
in Fig. 1(a), the first node i = 1 is composed of one tributary and the
the pollutant/tracer mass conservation equations written for a combi-
corresponding cross-section is denoted as (1,1); and the second node
nation of successive nodes (more precisely, from node i = a up to node
i = 2 comprises two tributaries and the cross-sections (2,1) and (2,2).
i = b) are given as follows:
The latent term (which is not measured but estimated as described in
Section 2.1) is signified by the Greek index s = λ. For the example river DX b =X ,0 +(
b ni
X ± i = Xi,
b
) Xb + 1,0 for 1 a b K
i= s = 1 i, s
in Fig. 1(a), there are two cross-sections corresponding to the latent b ni b
Dq b,j = X ,0 Y +( X Y ± Xi, Yi, ,j)
water quantities of the two nodes, those being (1,λ) and (2,λ). ,0, j i= s = 1 i, s i, s, j i=

The measured values of the river discharge and of the concentration Xb + 1,0 Yb + 1,0, j for 1 a b K; 1 j p
of a pollutant/tracer j at a cross-section (i,s), as well as the corre-
(3)
sponding estimated latent terms, are xi,s and yi,s,j (i = 1,2, …,K+1;
s = 0,1, …,ni, λ and j = 1,…,p). It is assumed that the total number of By setting a = b and considering the residuals DXab and Dqab,j of the
appropriate pollutants/tracers with measured concentration is p balance equations equal to zero, expressions (3) can be written for the
(where: 1 ≤ j ≤ p). The pollution load of a pollutant j at a cross-section balance (water volume or pollutant mass balance) of each single node i
(i,s) is denoted as qi,s,j, and is estimated as the product of the measured (where: i = 1,2 …,K).
values of the water flow rate and the pollutant concentration: xi,syi,s,j. A first rough estimation of the unknown values of the latent terms
The corrected/optimized value (derived from the proposed metho- xi,λ and yi,λ,j (which cannot be directly measured) can be computed
dology) of the river discharge and of the pollutant concentration are from expressions (3) and written for each single node by using the
denoted as Xi,s and Yi,s,j. The absolute maximum relative measurement measured values xi,s and yi,s,j, instead of the corrected ones Xi,s and Yi,s,j.
error of the river discharge at a cross-section (i,s) is denoted as εi,s, and The latent term xa,λ of node i = a is then derived as follows:
the absolute maximum relative measurement error of the concentration na

of a pollutant j is written as ζi,s,j. In Table 1, we present an overview of x a, = DXaa x a,0 xa, s + Xa + 1,0 for Dxaa = 0
(4)
the notation and the input and output data of the proposed error-cor- s=1

rection technique for the example river shown in Fig. 1(a). Next, a first estimate of the unknown value yi,λ,j of the latent pol-
lutant/tracer concentration of node i and for each considered pollutant j
is provided by the pollutant mass conservation of the node. For node

Table 1
Notation and symbols of river discharge and tracer concentrations at each cross-section of the river in Fig. 1(a): a) measured/estimated and b) optimized/corrected
values.
Cross-section Node River discharge Concentration for each pollutant/tracer j

a/a Notation Measured Optimized Measurement error Measured Optimized Measurement error

1 (1,0) 1 x1,0 X1,0 ε1,0 y1,0,j Y1,0,j ζ1,0,j

2 (1,1) 1 x1,1 X1,1 ε1,1 y1,1,j Y1,1,j ζ1,1,j
Latent1 (1,λ) 1 x1,λ X1,λ ε1,λ y1,λ,j Y1,λ,j ζ1,λ,j
3 (2,0) 1&2 x2,0 X2,0 ε2,0 y2,0,j Y2,0,j ζ2,0,j
4 (2,1) 2 x2,1 X2,1 ε2,1 y2,1,j Y2,1,j ζ2,1,j
5 (2,2) 2 x2,2 X2,2 ε2,2 y2,2,j Y2,2,j ζ2,2,j
Latent2 (2,λ) 2 x2,λ X1,λ ε2,λ y2,λ,j Y2,λ,j ζ2,λ,j
6 (3,0) 2 x3,0 X3,0 ε3,0 y3,0,j Y3,0,j ζ3,0,j

375
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

i = α, the ya,λ,j is computed as follows:
na
(Dqaa,j x a,0 ya,0, j x y
s = 1 a, s a,0, j
+ x a + 1,0 ya+ 1,0, j )
ya, =±
,j
x a,
The inequality constraints of the second group are formulated by
replacing in expressions (2) the Xi,s and Yi,s,j for each cross-section (i,s)
(where i = 1,2 …,K and s = 0,1 …,ni,λ) with its equivalent as derived
from the balance equality (3). For example, regarding cross-section (b
+1,0), based on the water volume balance from node a up to b (ex-
pression (3)), the following dual constraint can be formulated:
0 xb+ 1,0 (1 b + 1,0 ) DX b + (X ,0
xb+ 1,0 (1 + b + 1,0 )
For cross-section (b+1,0), the inequality constraint of this form will
be written as many times as the number of balance equations of every
single- and multiple-node combination, which includes the given cross-
section.
For the pollutant/tracer mass conservation, the corresponding in-
equalities take the following form for cross-section (b+1,0), based on
the balance from node a up to b (expression (3)):
0 xb+ 1,0 (1 b + 1,0 ) yb + 1,0, j (1 b + 1,0, j )
b ni
( Dqab + (Xa,0 Ya, o, j + ( i=a
X Y
s = 1 i, s i, s, j
xb+ 1,0 (1 + b + 1,0 ) yb + 1,0, j (1 + b + 1,0, j )
Appendix A details the optimization problem for the example river
in Fig. 1(a).
2.5. Computer implementation
To implement the proposed methodology, we selected the LINGO
optimization software (Lindo Systems Inc., 1996; Schrage, 1997), since
it is a very efficient and robust tool for building and solving mathe-
matical optimization models. To increase the flexibility and ease of the
proposed methodology, Microsoft Excel was also employed in order to
import and export input and output data to and from LINGO. This was
made possible through the OLE Automation Links from Excel. Most of
the input computational processes necessary for the calculation of a)
the coefficients of the objective function and constraints, and b) the
right- and left-hand side of the constraints of the optimization algo-
rithm, were introduced into Excel through VBA macros, which com-
municated with LINGO to exchange data and run the algorithm at every
step. To compute the optimization problem of our proposed metho-
dology, we employed LINGO's Global solver. Local search solvers are
generally designed to search only until they have identified a local
optimum. However, the Global LINGO solver converts the original non-
convex, nonlinear problem into several convex, linear sub-problems.
Next, it uses the branch-and-bound technique to exhaustively search
these sub-problems for a global solution.
for Dq =0
(5)
,j
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Virtual river example
To test the consistency of the proposed methodology, we considered
a “virtual example” of a river, as shown in Fig. 1. More precisely, for
this virtual example we used a sufficiently large number of simulated
measurement datasets employing the Monte Carlo technique. For real
b ni b
+( i=
X
s = 1 i, s
± i=
Xi, )) rivers, it was not possible to find complete and detailed datasets, as
required for fully testing the methodology's consistency. The reason for
(6) this is that the required datasets should include extensive quantitative
and qualitative measurements with both accurate (representing the real
values) and inaccurate (representing the measured values subject to
correction) methods employed at numerous measurement cross-sec-
tions. The measuring cross-sections should cover the whole river length
(all tributaries and the main river) and should be properly situated to
enable the formulation of balance nodes. Moreover, the measurement
datasets should include also accurate measurement of the latent
quantities (which is practically impossible since these are unobserved
quantities) in order to enable the comparison of the corrected (from the
methodology) latent quantity with the real values represented from the
b
± i=a
Xi, Yi, , j ))) accurate measurements. In real rivers, such detailed sets of measure-
(7) ments are not available and from economical point of view not possibly
collected. After testing the consistency of the methodology, to demon-
strate its application at any river with measuring cross-sections for-
mulating balance nodes, a real case study, being the Alfeios river in
Greece, is considered in Section 3.3.
The “virtual river example” was built as follows. Accurate mea-
surement values of river discharge and pollutant/tracer concentrations
were theoretically determined by the authors in order to fully satisfy
the water volume and pollutant mass conservation requirements. These
are given in Table 2 as the real values of the two parameters (river
discharge and tracer concentration), denoted as Xreali,s and Yreali,s,j. In
order to produce a sufficiently large number of measurement sets of xi,s
and yi,s,j for all river cross-sections, Monte-Carlo simulations were un-
dertaken, as described below. The wide range of the produced mea-
surement sets represents various random measurements undertaken at
different random moments at the considered cross-sections across the
river. Moreover, the effect of systematic errors (SE) was also included in
order to consider a problem of the measurement data handling system,
or a misuse of the measuring instrument. For the SE we assume low,
medium and high values (Table 3) with positive and negative sign to
cover a systematic under- and over-estimation of the real values. Based
on these, we produced simulated measurement sets considering the
following eight combined cases of random errors (RE) and systematic
errors (SE):

Table 2
Real values and measurement errors of river discharge and tracer concentrations at each cross-section of the river in Fig. 1(a).
Cross-section Node Real river discharge, Xreali,s (m3/s) Measurement error of river discharge, εi,s Real concentration, Yreali,s,j, for Measurement error, ζi,s,j, for

a/a Notation EC (mS/cm) SO42−(g/l) EC SO42-

1 (1,0) 1 7 1.00 0.60 0.100 0.10 0.15

2 (1,1) 1 10 0.35 0.39 0.040 0.10 0.15
Latent1 (1,λ) 1 3 0.90 0.43 0.033 0.30 0.30
3 (2,0) 1 and 2 20 0.05 0.47 0.060 0.10 0.15
4 (2,1) 2 37 0.06 0.43 0.017 0.10 0.15
5 (2,2) 2 7 0.05 0.32 0.006 0.10 0.15
Latent2 (2,λ) 2 2 0.90 0.42 0.055 0.30 0.30
6 (3,0) 2 66 0.05 0.43 0.030 0.10 0.15

376
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

Table 3
Low, medium and high SE values for the example river in Fig. 1(a): values expressed as a) % of the Xreali,s and b) as absolute.
Cross-section (1,0) (1,1) (1,λ) (2,0) (2,1) (2,2) (2,λ) (3,0)

3
Xreali,s (m /s) 7 10 3 20 37 7 2 66
εi,s 1 0.35 0.9 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.9 0.05
Low SE value SE (%Xreali,s) 5 5 5 1 1 1 10 1
SE 0.35 0.5 0.15 0.2 0.37 0.07 0.2 0.66
Medium SE value SE (%Xreali,s) 10 10 10 2 2 2 10 2
SE 0.70 1.00 0.30 0.40 0.74 0.14 0.20 1.32
High SE value SE (%Xreali,s) 20 15 20 3 3 3 20 3
SE 1.4 1.5 0.6 0.6 1.11 0.21 0.4 1.98

Case 1. RE following the uniform distribution (UD) and no SE (called
UDN)
Case 2. RE following the normal distribution (ND) and no SE (called
NDN)
Case 3. RE following the ND and low positive values of SE (called
NDL+)
Case 4. RE following the ND and low negative values of SE (called
NDL−)
Case 5. RE following the ND and medium positive values of SE (called
NDM+)
Case 6. RE following the ND and medium negative values of SE (called
NDM−)
Case 7. RE following the ND and high positive values of SE (called
NDH+)
Case 8. RE following the ND and high negative values of SE (NDH−)
Based on the defined measurement errors εi,s and ζi,s,j (Table 2),
1000 measurement error values (denoted as MCExi,s for discharges and
MCEyi,s,j for concentrations) were generated by Monte-Carlo simula-
tions for ND, assuming: a) N(0,εi,s/5) for the river discharge measure-
ment error, and b) N(0,ζi,s,j/5) for each pollutant/tracer concentration
(to approximate almost 100% of the ND curve, we take εi,s = 5σ and
ζi,s,j = 5σ). For the UD, the MCExi,s and MCEyi,s,j were generated based
on the minimum and maximum allowable values of each parameter, as
shown in expressions (2). The 1000 measurement sets (xi,s and yi,s,j)
were then computed as follows: xi,s = Xreali,s(1+ MCExi,s) and
yi,s,j = Yreali,s,j(1+ MCEyi,s,j). In the above-mentioned error cases the
effect of the systematic errors (SE) on the process is considered only in
combination with the random errors following the ND, since random
measurement errors often have a Gaussian normal distribution (Sauer
and Meyer, 1992; Le Coz, 2012). The UD is also considered in order to
test the efficiency of the proposed methodology for an extreme dis-
tribution.
3.2. Results and discussion of the virtual river example
The averages and the standard deviations of (a) the 1000 mea-
surement sets (measurement values - MV) generated by Monte-Carlo
simulations and (b) their resulting optimized values (OV) for all error
cases are presented in the supplementary material (Table S1). The
presented results can be grouped into two categories based on the river-
discharge measurement error of each cross-section: (a) cross-sections
with medium to high river-discharge measurement errors εi,s > 0.1
and (b) cross-sections with low river-discharge measurement errors
(εi,s ≤ 0.1).
3.2.1. Deviation of the MV and OV averages from the real values for the
measured cross-sections
Based on Table S1, for the first category: (i) for all error cases the
OV averages are closer to the real values than the MV averages for all
cross-sections except for the latent ones; (ii) the OV standard deviations
are significantly lower in comparison with the MV ones. For the second
category: (i) the OV and MV averages are approximately equal (relative
difference ≤0.05%); (ii) the OV averages are close to the real values,
but not necessarily closer than the MV averages; (iii) the OV standard
deviations differentiate slightly in comparison with the MV standard
deviations. The small differences between OV and MV in this case can
be explained, since the river-discharge measurement errors are low and
the value range narrow. Concluding, for both categories, the proposed
methodology achieves to reduce the value range of the river discharge
measurements of all measured cross-sections, and the OV averages are
close to the true value.
3.2.2. Deviation of the MV and OV averages from the real values for the
latent cross-sections
Regarding Table S1, the results for the latent quantities can be
presented in three groups:
1) For the NDN case, the OV averages are almost equal to the corre-
sponding MV averages, and both are very close to the real value.
Therefore, the OV averages seem to be a very good estimation of the
theoretically non-measurable latent discharges. The OV standard
deviations are higher but comparable with the MV standard devia-
tions.
2) For the cases with SE (being cases from 3 to 8), the OV averages start
diverging progressively from the MV averages and the real values as
the SE values increase from low to high. The OV standard deviations
are almost the same as the MV standard deviations.
3) For the UDN case, the OV averages diverge from the MV averages
and the real values, being comparable to the corresponding values of
the NDH+ and NDH− cases. The OV standard deviations are the
highest, being two to three times higher than the standard devia-
tions of the measurement sets.
3.2.3. Convergence of the correction methodology towards the true value
Additionally, we tested if, and to what extent, the proposed cor-
rection method converges towards the true values. To this end, we
plotted the diagrams (Fig. 3) for each cross-section, as well as for the
sum of the differences of all cross-sections together. The x-axis is the
absolute difference between the MV and the real discharge value, │xi,s-
Xreali,s│; and the y-axis is the absolute difference between the OV and
the real discharge value, │Xi,s-Xreali,s│. The ideal correction by the
proposed methodology is the one for which the point of this diagram
approaches or lies on the x-axis, where │Xi,s-Xreali,s│ = 0. The 45o-line
of this diagram (red solid line) represents the line where the MV and OV
have the same distance from the real value. A percentage of ± 10%
around the 45o-line is considered an acceptable tolerance of the dif-
ference │Xi,s-Xreali,s│. This 45o-line ± 10% tolerance (green dotted
line) is taken as the limit below which the measurements are either
corrected toward the real value or their correction remains redundant.
As a measure of good correction of the proposed methodology, the
percentage (%) of the number of the measurement sets situated below
the 45o-line+10% (from now on called PE), which is the acceptable

377
E.S. Bekri, et al.
Fig. 3. Absolute differences of MV (x-axis) and of OV (y-axis) from the real river discharge for: (a) the NDN case considering all cross-sections together, (b) the NDN
case for cross-section (1,0); (c) the NDN case for cross-section (1,2); and (d) for the NDH− case of cross-section (1,0).
correction area, was computed and is shown in the supplementary
material (Table S2) for each cross-section and for the total sum. For the
NDN case, the corresponding diagrams demonstrate: i) the sum of all
cross-sections together in Fig. 3(a); ii) cross-section (1,0) with the
highest εi,s in Fig. 3(b); and iii) cross-section (2,1) with the lowest εi,s in
Fig. 3(c). Generally, for all diagrams, even when the │xi,s-Xreali,s│ is
high (> 2), the │Xi,s-Xreali,s│ lies within the acceptable correction area.
Focusing on Table S2, the following remarks can be made: i) Con-
sidering all cross-sections together, the PE is very high (92–99%), re-
vealing a satisfactory result for the method in general. ii) For cross-
section (1,0) with the highest εi,s, the PE is relatively lower (73–80%)
than the PE for the sum of all cross-sections together. iii) For the rest of
the measured cross-sections, the PE is high, ranging from 88% to 99%
for all NDN cases, and is wider for the UDN case (64–93%). iv) For the
latent quantities, the PE is significantly lower (under 50%) than for the
measured cross-sections. v) Through a detailed analysis of the mea-
surement sets that lie in the unacceptable area of correction, it is of note
that the relative error (Xi,s-Xreali,s)/Xreali,s is not higher than 35% in
most cases. More than 80% of the measurement sets in this area have
absolute values less than ± 20% of the Xreali,s. This can be clearly seen
for cross-section (1,0) of the NDH− case, with relative error (2–37%).
The ordinary and cumulative histogram is presented in Fig. 4(a),
showing that more than 95% of the cases that violated the acceptable
limit of correction have a relative error below 25%.
378
Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384
3.2.4. Effect of the measurement error value on the convergence towards the
true value
Finally, in all diagrams in Fig. 3 a lower limit is evident (marked
with a red closed frame in Fig. 3(d), where this limit is highlighted more
clearly). This border shows that something is preventing the correction
algorithm from correcting these measurement sets, resulting in the
optimized values not being close to the ideal solution. To investigate
this, we analyzed the points of the limit in Fig. 3(d). We realized that
they correspond to the lowest values of the generated measurement
sets. Their allowable upper limit, x1,0(1+ε1,0), does not include the real
value and is lower, resulting in │Xi,s-Xreali,s│ > 0. For this reason, the
correction technique computed their optimized values equal to their
allowable maximum value. Let us select a point from this limitation in
Fig. 3(d) which corresponds to a measured value x1,0 = 1.69 m3/s,
where: (ε1,0 = 1.0; x1,0(1+ε1,0) = 3.34 m3/s; X1,0 = 3.34 m3/s;
Xreal1,0 = 7 m3/s). We considered various values of the corresponding
measurement error ε1,0 (ε1,0 = 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,12,20,50,100) and, in
Fig. 4(b), we computed and plotted: a) the allowable maximum value
limit (blue solid line) and b) the optimized values X1,0 (red dotted line).
From this figure, it is evident that: (a) for the values of ε1,0, where the
allowable maximum value limit is lower than the real value, a linear
line (first part of the red line) is created, and in this region the opti-
mized values are equal to this upper value limit; and (b) for the values
of ε1,0, where the allowable maximum value limit is higher than the real
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

Fig. 4. For cross-section (1,0) and for the NDH− case: (a) ordinary and cumulative histogram of the relative error, (X1,0-Xreal1,0)/Xreal1,0, considering the MV
situated within the unacceptable area of correction; and (b) change of the optimized river discharge values X1 by increasing the measurement error ε1,0, together with
the upper value limit of the river discharge x1,0(1+ε1,0).

value, the optimized value of the river discharge is stabilized and re-
mains equal to X1,0 = 8.14 m3/s, regardless of the increase in the ε1,0
(horizontal part of the red line). It is worth noting that the increase in
the ε1,0 does not affect the optimized values of the river discharge in the
other cross-sections of the river.

3.3. Application on a real river basin

Next, we applied our methodology to a real river, the Alfeios river in

Peloponnisos, Greece (Manariotis and Yannopoulos, 2004; Bekri and
Yannopoulos, 2012; Podimata and Yannopoulos, 2013). The simulta-
neous discharge measurements (using quick techniques and water
sampling) included twelve cross-sections along the main river and its
tributaries, as shown in Fig. 5. The measurement cross-sections com-
prised either road bridges or dams, where access to the entire river
length was possible. Four measurement expeditions took place in 2006
and 2007 within the framework of the research program Pythagoras II-
Environment (Yannopoulos et al., 2007; Yannopoulos, 2008). The dis-
charge measurements included an estimation of the cross-section geo-
metrical characteristics along with the surface maximum velocity; this
was achieved by employing the floating-object method, the pendulum
method, and/or the air-bubble release method, depending on whether
the flow depth was irregular or whether the flow permitted bubbles to
be clearly viewed. The duration of the measurement expedition was
about one day in order to avoid or reduce the effect of a possible change
in the steady-state flow conditions.
Additionally, the date of each expedition was carefully selected
based on the weather data available (excluding dates directly after
short or long rainy periods); thus, every attempt was made to measure
the mean, steady-state flow conditions without bias. The travel time of
water from the river springs to the river delta was estimated to be about
2 days. Every expedition started with measurements at the measure-
ment cross-section closest to the estuaries of the Alfeios river, and then
moved upstream to the very last cross-section closest to the river
springs. For the sake of brevity, in this paper we present only the Fig. 5. Geographical depiction of the Alfeios river basin with the measurement
measurement set of the first measurement expedition, which took place cross-sections and corresponding sub-basins.
on 9 April 2006, from 07:40 till 20:00; this is because the application of
our correction methodology to all the measurement expeditions re- tributary, the Lousios river cross-section (1,1). The next downstream
sulted in similar conclusions. adjoining node i = 2 is composed of cross-sections (2,0) (common with
For the application of our technique, four balance nodes were the node i = 1) and (3,0) on the main Alfeios river, and contains two
carefully defined in order to satisfy the previously-discussed distance tributaries, the Ladhon river cross-section (2,1) (which covers almost
requirements of the methodology, covering the entire river length and one third of the total catchment) and the Erymanthos river cross-section
its tributaries. Starting from the river sources, the first node i = 1 in- (2,2). The third node i = 3 includes cross-section (4,0), being common
cludes cross-sections (1,0) and (2,0) on the main Alfeios river and one with the previous node, and cross-section (3,0), situated at the Flokas

379
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

Table 4
River discharge and tracer concentration at each measured (thus excluding the latent terms) cross-section of the Alfeios river: a) Measurements, b) optimized values
and c) measurement errors.
Cross-sections

(1,0) (1,1) (2,0) (2,1) (2,2) (3,0) (3,1) (3,2) (3,3) (4,0) (4,1) (5,0)

xi,s (m3/s)
3.01 6.68 19.66 42.00 7.08 67.70 0.37 0.32 2.45 67.00 1.54 66.50
Xi,s (m3/s)
6.02 10.02 19.04 40.08 7.01 67.69 0.38 0.34 2.51 66.04 1.46 67.51
εi,s
1.00 0.50 0.05 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
yi,s,j, where j = EC (mS/cm) and where ζi,s,j = 0.10
0.62 0.38 0.45 0.41 0.31 0.42 0.70 1.08 0.42 0.42 0.50 0.42
Yi,s,j, where j = EC (mS/cm)
0.62 0.41 0.48 0.45 0.34 0.45 0.63 0.97 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45
yi,s,j, where j = SO42− (g/l) and where ζi,s,j = 0.15
0.12 0.05 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.08 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.04
Yi,s,j, where j = SO42− (g/l)
0.12 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.10 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.03

Diversion Dam used for irrigation purposes. This third node i = 3 in-
cludes the following tributaries: a) Two tributaries with a low to minor
contribution to the node's water volume balance, i.e. Kladheos river
cross-section (3,1) close to Ancient Olympia, and Selinous river cross-
section (3,2); and b) the entrance to the irrigation canal close to the
Flokas Dam, being the outflowing cross-section (3,3). The fourth and
last node i = 4 is located near the river's estuary (Kyparissiakos Gulf). It
encompasses cross-sections (4,0) and (5,0) on the main Alfeios river,
and one tributary, i.e. the Enipeus river cross-section (4,1).
The following natural tracers have been tested and selected as the
most appropriate based on the requirements of the methodology tested
here (Ziabras and Tasias, 1992): (a) Water conductivity, with mea-
surements in the field corresponding to a satisfactory accuracy level
(ζi,s,1≤0.10); and (b) Sulphate ion concentration (SO42−), with mea-
surements derived from laboratory analysis of water samples, again
corresponding to a satisfactory accuracy level (ζi,s,2≤0.15).
Table 4 demonstrates the measured values of: 1) the river discharge
xi,s (m3/s); 2) the electroconductivity yi,s,j, where: j = EC (mS/cm); 3)
the concentration of sulphate ions yi,s,j, where: j = SO42− (g/l); and 4)
the corresponding measurement errors εi,s and ζi,s,j. For the latent cross-
sections (1,λ), (2,λ), (3,λ) and (4,λ) there are no measurements avail-
able, since by definition it is not possible to measure the latent terms. In
order to approximate the “measured” values of the latent terms for the
river discharge xi,λ (which is necessary for our methodology), we rely
on authors’ expert knowledge regarding the latent quantities and spe-
cific hydrogeological characteristics of the corresponding sub-basin
areas. More precisely, the “unobserved” values of the latent river dis-
charge xi,λ are assumed to take the values of 1 m3/s and 1.5 m3/s re-
spectively, as presented in Table 5. The measurement errors for all la-
tent cross-sections are set to high values (εi,λ = 1) so that the wide value
range does not restrict the optimized values close to the assumed
measured values, as thoroughly explained in the description of the
methodology. To approximate the “measured” values of the latent
terms for the two tracer concentrations under consideration, it is as-
sumed that these latent concentrations are mainly the product of the
mixing of all pollutant loads from the incoming contributions of the
node. Therefore, they are taken as being equal to the concentration
values of the outflowing cross-sections of the node of each latent term
(see Table 5). In this case, again, the measurement errors are set to high
values (ζi,λ,j = 1, where: j = EC; and ζi,λ,j = 1.5, where: j = SO42−).
3.4. Results and discussion of the real river basin
The correction methodology employed in this paper generated the
optimized values for all measured cross-sections (presented in Table 4)
and for the latent cross-sections (in Table 5). Since there are accurate
measurements available for only few cross-sections of the Alfeios river,
the verification of the corrected (optimized) values is possible indirectly
based on expert judgment. The following conclusions can be made:
For cross-section (1,0), with the highest discharge measurement
error, the optimized value is computed as two times higher than the
measurement, revealing a significant underestimation of this mea-
surement. This cross-section can only be accessed with difficulty and is
quite abnormal and irregular. The river bed has a considerable incline,
with large extruding rocks which the water passes over, making it
difficult to measure this unobserved quantity. This anomaly contributes
to increased measurement errors combined with very low accuracy and
explains the substantial underestimation of the measured values. In this
case, our correction algorithm succeeds in moving the optimized value
towards the direction of the expected true value, which is higher than
the measurement. The next measurement cross-section (1,1) presents a
slightly better picture, however it also has an irregular shape, a notable
incline and large rocks are present, thus resulting in medium-level
measurement errors. Also, in this case the optimized value is higher
than the measurement, as could be expected based on the profile of the
measurement cross-section. Contrarily, measurement position (2,0) is
characterized by a gentle, bright and easily-accessible cross-section.
The air-bubble release method was employed here to estimate the river
discharge with sufficient accuracy (with measurement error
εi,s < 20%). Our correction technique computed an optimized value
very close to the measurement, indicating a result consistent with the
observed measurement conditions.

Table 5
Latent terms of river discharge and tracer concentration of the Alfeios river: a) assumed “measured” values, b) optimized values and c) “measurement” errors.
Cross-sections xi,s (m3/s), εi,s = 1.00 Xi,s yi,λ,j where j = EC (mS/cm), Yi,λ,j where j = EC yi,s,j where j = SO42− (g/l), Yi,λ,j where j = SO42−(g/l)
(m3/s) ζi,s,j = 1.0 (mS/cm) ζi,s,j = 1,50

(1,λ) 1.00 3.00 0.42 0.42 0.04 0.02

(2,λ) 1.00 1.55 0.42 0.58 0.04 0.08
(3,λ) 1.50 0.15 0.42 0.84 0.03 0.09
(4,λ) 1.50 0.00 0.45 0.82 0.06 0.10

380
E.S. Bekri, et al.
For measurement cross-section (2,1) at the Ladhon river, there is a
registered water volume value (provided by the Hellenic Public Power
Corporation) for the volume released by the Ladhon Hydropower sta-
tion situated at the most upstream point of the sub-basin (=36.75 m3/
s). The hydrologic characteristics of the drainage area of this sub-basin
justify a small additional contribution from the surface runoff of the
area downstream from the hydropower station (with a value of ≤3 m3/
s). The computed optimized value (40 m3/s) is lower compared with the
measurement (42 m3/s), and the optimization algorithm succeeds in
moving towards the direction of the registered value. For measurement
position (2,2) at the Erymanthos river, our correction technique com-
puted an optimized value very close to the measurement, indicating a
result consistent with the observable measurement conditions.
For measurement cross-sections (3,0), (4,0) and (5,0) situated at
specific points based on the hydrogeological profile of the Alfeios river,
the river discharges are all of the same order without significant var-
iations. This is in accordance with the optimized river-discharge values
computed using our technique. For the low-flow cross-sections (3,1)
and (3,2), no significant variation of the optimized values from the
measured ones was generated by the algorithm.
For measurement position (4,1), our correction technique computed
an optimized value very close to the measurement, which is in ac-
cordance with the expected results since the measurement conditions
were very good at this cross-section, resulting in a high level of mea-
suring accuracy.
The optimized value of the latent river discharge of the first node
X1,λ (Table 5) has the highest value of all the latent values, and this is
consistent with the latent area of this node, which is the largest com-
pared to the other nodes. Moreover, in this latent area there is a
probable contribution of groundwater. The optimized values of the la-
tent river discharges of the second, third and fourth nodes are also
consistent with the latent areas of the corresponding nodes. To test the
effect of the assumed “measured” values of the latent discharges for all
nodes, various values xi,λ (0.5,1,5, 2 and 3 m3/s) were considered. The
optimized river discharge values of all cross-sections were not affected
by these changes, showing a stabilized solution.
The corrected (optimized) values of the pollutant/tracer con-
centrations of all measured cross-sections are very close to the mea-
sured ones, with narrow value ranges; since, according to the metho-
dology proposed in this paper, the measurement errors should be very
low (high measuring accuracy) in order to be included in the optimi-
zation problem. The optimized values of the latent tracer concentra-
tions of all nodes, for which the measurement errors may have large
values, cannot be explicitly evaluated since no measurements are
available. Despite this, it is possible to determine that these optimized
values are within the value range of the measured tracer concentration
of the Alfeios river basin. Generally, since the direct measurement of
the latent terms is impossible, the estimation and subsequent correction
Appendix C. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.05.064.
Appendix A. Application of the mathematical framework to the example river.
For the river in Fig. 1(a), the first type of inequalities is written as follows:
0 x1,0 (1 1,0 ) X1,0 x1,0 (1 + 1,0 )
0 x1,1 (1 1,1) X1,1 x1,1 (1 + 1,1)
0 x1, (1 1, ) X1, x1, (1 + 1, )
0 x2,0 (1 2,0 ) X2,0 x2,0 (1 + 2,0 )
0 x2,1 (1 2,1) X2,1 x2,1 (1 + 2,1)
0 x2,2 (1 2,2 ) X2,2 x2,2 (1 + 2,2 )
0 x2, (1 2, ) X2, x2, (1 + 2, )
0 x3,0 (1 3,0 ) X3,0 x3,0 (1 + 3,0 )
381
Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384
of their estimation (even if relatively inaccurate) is still very important
and useful.
4. Conclusions
In this paper we developed an original error correction technique,
enabling the estimation of more reliable river-discharge values mainly
in rivers without permanent measurement stations, compared with the
measurements taken. It included a nonlinear optimization model based
on the principles of water volume and pollutant mass conservation
within single- and multiple-balance river nodes. In addition, the
method considered probable, but unknown, latent quantities for each
balance node. The proposed methodology can be applied to any river
which is composed of proper measurement positions/cross-sections
resulting in balance nodes, as required by the technique. We verified
the consistency of our correction methodology through a virtual river
example, defining the real values of flowrate and pollutant/tracer
concentrations and generating measurement sets based on Monte-Carlo
simulations, including random and systematic errors. Our methodology
succeeded in achieving a reduction in the value range of the river
flowrate compared with the range of the measurements. For the latent
quantities, the average of the optimized values was close to the average
of the measurements; however, the average of the optimized values
diverges from the average of the real values progressively, as the value
of the systematic error increases. The methodology was also success-
fully implemented on a real river basin. Therefore, it could constitute a
simple, efficient and valuable tool which could be implemented as part
of catchment pollution monitoring programs.
Acknowledgments
This research has been co-financed by the European Union
(European Social Fund - ESF) and Greek national funds through the
Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National
Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program:
Heracleitus II: Investing in knowledge society through the European
Social Fund. We would like to express our gratitude to: 1) Dimitris
Demetracopoulos, Ioannis Argyrakis, Ioannis Mavros and Ioannis
Stathas from the Hellenic Public Power Corporation for providing in-
valuable operational data for the Ladhon hydropower station; 2) to
HYDROCRITES University Network for its support (http://www.
hydrocrites.upatras.gr); 3) to Professor Markus Disse from the Chair
of Hydrology and River Basin Management of the Technical University
Munich, Germany, for his constructive comments; and 4) to Professor
Anastasios Stamou from the Department of Water Resources and
Environmental Engineering of the National Technical University of
Athens for his valuable time and his constructive comments concerning
the qualitative analysis of the river discharge measurements.
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

For each cross-section (i,s), i = 1,2 and s = 0,1,2,λ; and for each selected pollutant/tracers (j), 1 ≤ j ≤ p. Thus, the corresponding inequalities
based on the pollutant/tracer mass balance can be written as shown for the cross-section (1,0):
0 y1,0,j (1 1,0,j ) Y1,0,j y1,0,j (1 + 1,0,j )
0 y1,1,j (1 1,1,j ) Y1,1,j y1,1,j (1 + 1,1,j )
0 y1, , j (1 1, , j ) Y1, ,j y1, , j (1 + 1, , j )
0 y2,0,j (1 2,0,j ) Y2,0,j y2,0,j (1 + 2,0, j )
0 y2,1,j (1 2,1, j ) Y2,1, j y2,1,j (1 + 2,1,j )
0 y2,2, j (1 2,2, j ) Y2,2,j y2,2,j (1 + 2,2,j )
0 y2, , j (1 2, ,j) Y2, ,j y2, , j (1 + 2, , j )
0 y3,0,j (1 3,0, j ) Y3,0, j y3,0,j (1 + 3,0,j )

The following water volume balance equations are calculated and, accordingly, generate the pollutant mass conservation equations:
DX11 = X1,0 + X1,1 ± X1, X2,0 for single balance node 1
DX22 = X2,0 + X2,1 + X2,2 ± X2, X3,0 for single balance node 2
DX12 = X1,0 + X1,1 ± X1, + X2,1 + X2,2 ± X2, X3,0 for balance of nodes 1 to 2
Dq11, j = X1,0 Y1,0, j + X1,1 Y1,1, j ± X1, Y1, , j X2,0 Y2,0, j for single balance node 1
Dq22, j = X2,0 Y2,0, j + X2,1 Y2,1, j + X2,2 Y2,2, j ± X2, Y2, ,j X3,0 Y3,0, j for single balance node 2
Dq12, j = X1,0 Y1,0, j + X1,1 Y1,1, j + X2,1 Y2,1, j + X2,2 Y2,2, j ± X1, Y1, ,j ± X2, Y2, ,j X3,0 Y3,0, j for balance of nodes 1 to 2

The unknown values of the latent water quantities xi,λ of node i (where: i = 1 and 2) are given as follows:
x1, = ±(Dx11 x1,0 x1,1 + x2,0) for Dx11 = 0
x2, = ±(Dx22 x2,0 x2,1 x2,2 + x3,0 ) for Dx22 = 0

The latent term of the pollutant/tracer concentrations y1,λ,j is computed as follows (and the y2,λ,j accordingly):

Dq11, j x 1,0 y1,0, j x 1,1 y1,1, j + x 2,0 y2,0, j

y1, ,j =± x 1,
for Dq11, j = 0

Dq22, j x2,0 y2,0, j x 2,1 y2,1, j x2,2 y2,2, j + x3,0 y3,0, j

y2, ,j =± x2,
for Dq22, j = 0

Finally, all inequality constraints for cross-section (1,0), combining expressions (2) and (3) from the water volume balance, are given below;
accordingly, the corresponding inequality constraint sets are computed for the rest of the cross-sections:
0 x1,0 (1 1,0 ) DX11 (X1,1 ± X1, X2,0 ) x1,0 (1 + 1,0 )
0 x1,0 (1 1,0 ) DX12 (X1,1 ± X1, + X2,1 + X2,2 ± X2, X3,0 ) x1,0 (1 + 1,0 )

In addition, from the pollutant mass conservation equations for cross-section (1,0) and for each pollutant (j) the following inequality constraints
are computed:
0 x1,0 (1 1,0 ) y1,0,j (1 1,0,j ) Dq11, j (X1,1 Y1,1, j ± X1, Y1, ,j X2,0 Y2,0, j )
x1,0 (1 + 1,0 ) y1,0,j (1 + 1,0,j )
0 x1,0 (1 1,0 ) y1,0,j (1 1,0,j ) Dq12, j (X1,1 Y1,1, j + X2,1 Y2,1, j + X2,2 Y2,2, j ± X1, Y1, ,j ± X2, Y2, ,j X3,0 Y3,0, j )
x1,0 (1 + 1,0 ) y1,0,j (1 + 1,0,j )

Appendix B. Glossary including abbreviations and symbols

Dqab,j The residuals of the pollutant mass balance equations written for a combination of successive nodes (more precisely, from node i = a up to node i = b).
DVR Data validation and reconciliation
DXab The residuals of the water volume balance equations written for a combination of successive nodes (more precisely, from node i = a up to node i = b).
EC The electrical conductivity of water
F The objective function which is minimized and the corrected values of the parameters are derived from.
i The balance node with i = 1,2 …,K. Their enumeration starts from the river springs (i = 1, being the first node) towards river estuaries (i = K being the last node),
following the flow direction of the river.
(i,s) The measurement cross-sections, where the quantitative and qualitative measurements are undertaken. The enumeration of the cross-sections follows the flow direction
of the river. They are denoted by using two indices (i,s): the first one, i, is connected to the node enumeration (where: i = 1,2 …,K+1) and the second one, s, to the
enumeration of the cross-sections within node i (where: s = 0,1,2, …,ni and ni is the total number of tributaries at node i).
j The pollutants or tracers, which are taken into account into the methodology, with a j = 1, …,p
MCExi,s The measurement error values of discharges which were generated by Monte-Carlo simulations, assuming normal distribution.
MCEyi,s,j The measurement error values of concentrations, which were generated by Monte-Carlo simulations, assuming normal distribution.
MV Measured values
ND The normal distribution
NDH- Error Case 8: RE following the ND and high negative values of SE
NDH+ Error Case 7: RE following the ND and high positive values of SE
NDL- Error Case 4: RE following the ND and low negative values of SE

382
E.S. Bekri, et al. Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384

NDL+ Error Case 3: RE following the ND and low positive values of SE

NDM- Error Case 6: RE following the ND and medium negative values of SE
NDM+ Error Case 5: RE following the ND and medium positive values of SE
NDN Error Case 2: RE following the normal distribution (ND) and no SE
ni The total number of tributaries at node i
OV Optimized values (corrected by the proposed methodology)
p The total number of tracers with measured concentration.
qi,s,j The pollution load of a pollutant or tracer j at a cross-section (i,s) which is estimated as the product of the measured values of the water flow rate and the pollutant
concentration: xi,syi,s,j.
s It enumerates the cross-sections within node i with s = 0,1,2 …,ni. It starts from the cross-section at the main river where s = 0 and ends to the last tributary within the
node i where s = ni (where ni is the total number of tributaries at node i).
SE Systematic error
TDS The total dissolved solids concentration
UD The uniform distribution
UDN Error Case 1: RE following the uniform distribution (UD) and no SE
WLS Weighted least squares
xi,s The measured values of the river discharge at a cross-section (i,s) (i = 1,2 …,K+1; s = 0,1, …,ni,λ).
Xi,s The corrected/optimized value (derived from the proposed methodology) of the river discharge at a cross-section (i,s)
Xreali,s The real value of the river discharge at a cross-section (i,s)
yi,s,j The measured values of the concentration of a pollutant/tracer j at a cross-section (i,s) (i = 1,2 …,K+1; s = 0,1 …,ni,λ and j = 1, …,p).
Yi,s,j The corrected/optimized value (derived from the proposed methodology) of the pollutant concentration of a pollutant or tracer j at a cross-section (i,s)
Yreali,s,j The real value of the concentration of a pollutant or tracer j at a cross-section (i,s)
εi,s The absolute maximum relative measurement error of the river discharge at a cross-section (i,s)
ζi,s,j The absolute maximum relative measurement error of the concentration of a pollutant or tracer j at a cross-section (i,s)
λ In each single-balance node, we account for the existence of an unknown and not directly-measured water quantity (referred to as “latent”) in the process. The latent
discharge of a balance node is assumed to correspond to the runoff of a catchment area, which is included between all inflowing cross-sections and the outflowing cross-
section of the node. The latent term is signified by the Greek index s = λ

References
Allan, J.D., Reyeros de Castillo, M.M., Allen, J.D., 2007. Stream Ecology. Springer,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
APHA, 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, twentieth
ed. American Water Works Αssociation, Water Environment Federation.
Baloochy, B., Shokri, S., Marvast, M.A., 2010. A Fast Method for Data Validation in RTO
Technology. Int. J. Chem. Eng. Appl. 1 (3), 230.
Bekri, E.S., Disse, M., Yannopoulos, P.C., 2012. Methodological framework for correction
of quick river discharge measurements using quality characteristics. In: Yannopoulos,
P., Dimas, A. (Eds.), Paper Presented at 2nd Common Conference on Integrated Water
Resources Management for Sustainable Development. Hellenic Hydrotechnical
Association and Greek Committee for Water Resources Management, Patras, Greece
(in Greek) 11-13 October 2012.
Bekri, E.S., Yannopoulos, P.C., 2012. The interplay between the Alfeios River Basin
components and the exerted environmental stresses: a critical review. Water, Air, Soil
Pollut. 223 (7), 3783–3806.
Bekri, E.S., Yannopoulos, P.C., Disse, M., 2013. A combined linear optimisation metho-
dology for water resources allocation in an Alfeios river subBasin (Greece) under
uncertain and vague system conditions. In: Paper Presented at European Geosciences
Union General Assembly 2013, 22-27 April 2013, Vienna, Austria.
Carter, R.W., Anderson, I.E., 1963. Accuracy of current meter measurements. J. Hydraul.
Div. 89 (4), 105–115.
Delava, P., Maréchal, E., Vrielynck, B., Kalitventzeff, B., 1999. Modelling of a crude oil
distillation unit in term of data reconciliation with ASTM or TBP curves as direct
input – application crude oil preheating train. In: Paper Presented at ESCAPE-9
Conference, 31 May - 2 June 1999, Budapest, Hungary.
Dickinson, W.T., 1967. Accuracy of discharge determinations. In: Hydrology Papers. Ford
Collins, Colorado, USA.
Eaton, A.D., Clesceri, L.S., Greenberg, A.E., 1995. Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, nineteenth ed. American Public Health Association,
Washington D.C., USA.
Elhadi, N., Harrington, A., Hill, I., Lau, Y.L., Krishnappan, B.G., 1984. River mixing - a
state-of-the-art report. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 11 (3), 585–609.
Fogel, E., Huang, Y.F., 1982. On the value of information in system identification-
bounded noise case. Automatica 18 (2), 229–238.
Fujita, I., 2017. Discharge measurements of snowmelt flood by space-time image velo-
cimetry during the night using far-infrared camera. Water 9, 269. https://doi.org/10.
3390/w9040269.
Gartner, J.W., Ganju, N.K., 2007. Correcting acoustic Doppler current profiler discharge
measurement bias from moving-bed conditions without global positioning during the
2004 Glen Canyon Dam controlled flood on the Colorado River. Limnol Oceanogr.
Methods 5 (6), 156–162.
Hancock, J., 2013. Special Report - Next Generation Data Validation and Equation Based
Reconciliation Software Technology. Global Business Media, U.K.
Herschy, R.W., 1971. In: The Magnitude of Errors at Flow Measurements Stations: Water
Resources Board: Technical Report. Reading Bridge House, Reading, Berkshire, UK,
TN11.
Herschy, R.W., 1985. Streamflow Measurement. E&FN Spon, Elsevier Applied Science,
London, UK.
Himmelblau, D.M., 1978. Fault detection and diagnosis in chemical and petrochemical
processes. Chemical Engineering Monographs, vol. 8 Elsevier Scientific, New York,
USA.
Himmelblau, D.M., 1985. Material balance rectification via interval arithmetic. The use of
computers in chemical engineering. Process Systems Engineering 92, 121–133.
ISO 748, 1979. Liquid Flow Measurement in Open Channels –velocity Area Methods.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 1100, 1981. Liquid Flow Measurement in Open Channels: Part 1: Establishment and
Operation of a Gauging Station and Part 2: Determination of Stage-Discharge
Relation. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
ISO 772, 1988. Liquid Flow Measurement in Open Channels: Vocabulary and Symbols,
third ed. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Kim, K., Lee, J.S., Oh, C.-W., 2002. Inorganic chemicals in an effluent-dominated stream
as indicators for chemical reactions and streamflows. J. Hydrol. 264 (1–4), 147–156.
Kinori, B.Z., Mevorach, J., 1984. Manual of surface drainage engineering. In: Stream Flow
Engineering and Flood Protection. vol. II Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, The
Netherlands.
Kirchner, J.W., Feng, X., Neal, C., 2000. Fractal stream chemistry and its implications for
contaminant transport in catchments. Nature 403, 524–527.
Koelling, C., 2004. SIMK-Calibration of streamflow - gauging stations in rivers and canals.
In: Paper Presented at 5th International Conference on Innovation in Hydraulic
Efficiency Measurement IGHEM. University of Applied Sciences, Lucerne,
Switzerland.
Kuehn, D.R., Davidson, H., 1961. Computer control. II. Mathematics of control. Chem.
Eng. Prog. 57, 44–47.
Kuriqi, A., Ardiçlioglu, M., 2018. Investigation of hydraulic regime at middle part of the
Loire River in context of floods and low flow events. Pollack Period. 13 (1), 145–156.
Kuusisto, E., 1996. Hydrological measurements. In: Water Quality Monitoring - A
Practical Guide to the Design and Implementation of Freshwater Quality Studies and
Monitoring Programmes. United Nations Environment Programme, E&FN Spon,
London, UK.
Langenstein, M., Jansky, J., Laipple, B., 2004. Finding Megawatts in nuclear power plants
with process data validation. In: Paper Presented at ICONE12, Nuclear Engineering
Division. vol. 2 25-29 April 2004, Arlington, Virginia, USA.
Le Coz, J., 2012. A Literature Review of Methods for Estimating the Uncertainty
Associated with Stage-Discharge Relations. WHO, Lyon, France.
Lindo Systems Inc, 1996. LINDO User's Manual. Lindo Systems Inc, Chicago, Illinois.
Mah, R., Stanley, G.M., Downing, D., 1976. Reconciliation and rectification of process
flow and inventory data. IEC Process Design Development 15 (1), 175–183.
Mandel, D., Abdollahzadeh, A., Maquin, D., Ragot, J., 1998. Data reconciliation by in-
equality balance equilibration: a LMI approach. International Journal of Mineral
Processing 53 (3), 157–169.
Manariotis, I.D., Yannopoulos, P.C., 2004. Adverse effects on Alfeios river basin and an
integrated management framework based on sustainability. Environ. Manag. 34 (2),
261–269.
Maquin, D., Bloch, G., Ragot, J., 1991. Data reconciliation for measurements. Eur. J.
Diagnosis Saf. Autmation 1 (2), 145–181.
McMillan, H., Krueger, T., Freer, J., 2012. Benchmarking observational uncertainties for
hydrology. Hydrol. Process. 26 (26), 4078–4111.
Milanese, M., Belforte, G., 1982. Estimation theory and uncertainty intervals evaluation
in presence of unknown but bounded errors: linear families of models. IEEE Trans.
Autom. Control 27 (2), 408–413.
Milanese, M., Norton, J., Piet-Lahanier, H., Walter, E., 1996. Bounding Approaches to
System Identification. Springer US, New York, USA.
Müller, A., 1988. Discharge and velocity measurements. In: Balkema, A.A. (Ed.),
Proceedings of the Short Course on Discharge and Velocity Measurements,

383
E.S. Bekri, et al.
International Association for Hydraulic Research, IAHR Proceedings no.2, 26-28
August 1987, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Nakagawa, H., Ono, M., Oda, M., Nishijim, S., 2007. Development of a discharge mea-
surement technique combined with measurement of mean flow velocity and nu-
merical simulation of cross-sectional velocity distribution; field verification in a large
river. J. Hydrosci. Hydraul. Eng. 25, 77–88.
NCSU, 2008. Surface Water Flow Measurement for Water Quality: Monitoring Projects,
TechNotes 3. National Nonpoint Source Monitoring Program, U.S.EPA., USA.
Özyurt, D.B., Pike, R.W., 2004. Theory and practice of simultaneous data reconciliation
and gross error detection for chemical processes. Comput. Chem. Eng. 28 (3),
381–402.
Pelletier, P.M., 1988. Uncertainties in the determination of river discharge: a literature
review. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 15 (5), 834–850.
Peters, N., 1994. Hydrologic processes. In: Biogeochemistry of Small Catchments: A Tool
for Environmental Research: Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment
(SCOPE) of the International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU) and of the United
Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). John Wiley & Sons Ltd, New-York, USA
(Chapter 9).
Podimata, M., Yannopoulos, P.C., 2013. Evaluating challenges and priorities of a trans-
regional river basin in Greece by using a hybrid SWOT scheme and a stakeholders'
competency overview. Int. J. River Basin Manag. 11 (1), 93–110.
Ragot, J., Maquin, D., 2005. Data validation and diagnosis using interval analysis. In:
Paper Presented at 3rd European Workshop on Advanced Control and Diagnosis, 17-
18 November 2005, Mulhouse, France.
Ragot, J., Maquin, D., Bloch, G., 1991, July. Data reconciliation for process flow. In:
European Control Conference, ECC'91. vol. 2. pp. 1430–1435.
Rantz, S.E., 1982. Measurement and computation of streamflow: volume 1: measurement
of stage and discharge. In: USGE Water-Supply Paper 2175, 01-01. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C., USA.
Sauer, V.B., Meyer, R.W., 1992. Determination of error in individual discharge mea-
surements. In: Open File Report 92-144. U.S. Geological Survey, Norcross, Georgia,
USA.
Schmidt, C., Musolff, A., Trauth, N., Vieweg, M., Fleckenstein, J.H., 2012. Transient
analysis of fluctuations of electrical conductivity as tracer in the stream bed. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (10), 3689–3697.
Schrage, L.E., 1997. Optimization Modeling with LINDO, fifth ed. Duxbury Press, Pacific
Grove, USA.
Simpson, M.R., 2001. Discharge measurements using a broad-band acoustic Doppler
current profiler. In: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 01-01. U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Sacramento Calif., Denver CO, USA.
384
Journal of Environmental Management 247 (2019) 371–384
WFD, 2000. Water framework directive. Directive 2000/60/EC of the european parlia-
ment and of the council of 23 october 2000 establishing a framework for community
action in 12 the field of water policy. Off. J. Eur. Commun. L327, 1–72
22.12.2000, 43.
White, W.R., Mueller, A., 1988. Discharge measuring methods in open channels. Paper
presented at Short course on discharge and velocity measurements. In: Balkema, A.A.
(Ed.), IAHR Proceedings no.2, 26-28 August 1987, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
International Association for Hydraulic Research.
WMO, 1980. Manual on stream gauging: vol. I - fieldwork and vol. II - computation of
discharge. In: Operational Hydrology: Report No. 13. World Meteorological
Organization (WMO) - No. 519, Geneva, Switzerland.
Yannopoulos, P.C., 1995. Bubble size and movement in wide channel flows. Paper pre-
sented at the 4th Greek national congress on mechanics, demokritus university of
thrace. In: Theocaris, P.S., Gdoutos, E.E. (Eds.), Vol. II: Mechanics of Fluids and
Thermal Sciences, 26-29 June 1995, Xanthi, Greece (in Greek).
Yannopoulos, P.C., 2008. Development of low cost methodologies for quickly predicting
and monitoring of river pollution: final Report. In: Pythagoras II - Environment
Project. OPEVTΙΙ – ESF, University of Patras, Patras, Greece (in Greek).
Yannopoulos, P.C., Bekri, E.S., 2010. Correction of quick discharge measurements in
rivers using natural tracers. In: Christodoulou, Stamou (Eds.), Paper Presented at 6th
International Symposium on Environmental Hydraulics ISEH. vol. 2. Taylor and
Francis Group, London, UK, pp. 23–25 June 2010,.
Yannopoulos, P.C., Demetracopoulos, A.C., Hadjitheodorou, C., 2008. Quick method for
open channel discharge measurements using air bubbles. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (6),
843–846.
Yannopoulos, P.C., Manariotis, I.D., Ziogas, A.I., Kaleris, V.K., 2007. Methodology of river
pollution assessment and preliminary results. In: Di Silvio, G., Lanzoni, S. (Eds.),
Paper Presented at the 32nd IAHR Congress Harmonizing the Demands of Art and
Nature in Hydraulics, 1-6 July 2007, Venice, Italy.
Yannopoulos, P.C., Mavrikos, G., Demetracopoulos, A., Hatzitheodorou, C., 2000.
Velocity measurement in channels using a sphere. In: Christodoulou, G., Stamou, A.,
Nanou, A. (Eds.), Paper Presented at 8th National Congress of the Hellenic
Hydrotechnical Union. Hellenic Hydrotechnical Union, Athens, Greece (in Greek) 19-
21 April 2000.
Yorke, T.H., Oberg, K.A., 2002. Measuring river velocity and discharge with acoustic
Doppler profilers. Flow Meas. Instrum. 13 (5–6), 191–195.
Ziabras, T., Tasias, S., 1992. River Discharge Measurements through Natural Tracers in
Alfeios River. Diploma thesis. Environmental Engineering Laboratory, Civil
Engineering Department, University of Patras, Greece (in Greek).